Co-hosting it would be good for NZ and allow the Kiwis and countries like Samoa to play in front of "home" crowds. But hosting it alone would be silly. When you have the biggest RL markets in the world within a quick and cheap flight away it would be crazy to limit games to NZ. It would be a bit like having France host the entire tournament.

As for the federations, the RLIF have restructured. There are now five votes on the RLIF board. One each for the ARL, RFL and NZRL and one each to the RLEF and the new Pacific federation.

As for the federations, the RLIF have restructured. There are now five votes on the RLIF board. One each for the ARL, RFL and NZRL and one each to the RLEF and the new Pacific federation.

Interesting. Seeing as the RFL is the dominant force in the RLEF you would assume they could influence how that vote is cast. The NZRL tends to support the ARL, largely because they are a client nation reliant on the ANZAC test for income. As I recall the ARL and NZRL haven't joined the Pacific body, which would mean that organisations vote could be up for grabs. That could make RLIF meetings a bit more interesting.

"Just as we had been Cathars, we were treizistes, men apart."
Jean Roque, Calendrier-revue du Racing-Club Albigeois, 1958-1959

This is good news. For too long the NZRL have seemingly been happy to accept whatever scraps the Aussies let them have. Just look at the ANZAC test match. Next year will only be the 2nd time the Kiwis have staged it. Lets hope co-host doesn't just mean a macth against England in Auckland.

The development of the game in Europe is now clearly under the control of the RLEF, but in the pacific region it's a bit less clear. I thought the Pacific Federation, or whatever it's called, was just a grouping of the likes of PNG, Fiji etc. I didn't realise this was the development body. Surely the Aussies and Kiwis should be involved in this as much of the work would surely stem from them. Mind you, we never seem to hear much about what's going on out that way anyway.

Interesting. Seeing as the RFL is the dominant force in the RLEF you would assume they could influence how that vote is cast. The NZRL tends to support the ARL, largely because they are a client nation reliant on the ANZAC test for income. As I recall the ARL and NZRL haven't joined the Pacific body, which would mean that organisations vote could be up for grabs. That could make RLIF meetings a bit more interesting.

In what sense are the rfl the dominant force in the rlef? I'm not saying that you are wrong just curious as to how that works. Danny kandjazan said the rlef is funded entirely by the rlif for example.

PROUD TO BE A MEMBER OF http://www.rugbyleaguecares.org/ and http://www.walesrugb...-wales-for-2013Predictions for the future -Crusaders RL to get a franchise for 2012 onwards -WRONGWidnes Vikings also to get a franchise - RIGHTCrusaders RL to do the double over Widnes and finish five places ahead of them -WRONGWidnes Vikings NOT to dominate rugby league in years to come! STILL TO COME

This is good news. For too long the NZRL have seemingly been happy to accept whatever scraps the Aussies let them have. Just look at the ANZAC test match. Next year will only be the 2nd time the Kiwis have staged it. Lets hope co-host doesn't just mean a macth against England in Auckland.

totally incorrect. the ARL has offered the nzrl to host the anzac test and they are the ones that want it in australia because it makes greater revenues here, of which they share.

the lack of corporate facilities (or in good numbers i think) at the warriors home ground or north harbour stadium have meant that brisbane for example makes it much better for them

A country the size of NZ where RL is not even close to the number one sport cannot host a profitable WC with the lack of travelling fans we have in RL. If you could play Australia v England in Wellington in front of a few thousand travelling fans and a handful of ex-pats or hop on a plane for a couple of hours and play it in Brisbane in front of 40,000 or more which would you choose?

A country the size of NZ where RL is not even close to the number one sport cannot host a profitable WC with the lack of travelling fans we have in RL. If you could play Australia v England in Wellington in front of a few thousand travelling fans and a handful of ex-pats or hop on a plane for a couple of hours and play it in Brisbane in front of 40,000 or more which would you choose?

I think that's right. The more sensible idea would be to co-host but with NZ having the final, their own semi and the opening game. In that way it would be a Kiwi-flavoured competition but revenue would be maximised. The games involving the minor nations could be allocated depending on where they would be likely to attract the crowds - Tonga, Samoa, Cook Islands in NZ, for example, and Fiji, PNG in Aus. Scotland might be more popular in NZ given its links with the place (more bagpipe bands than Scotland, I believe) with Ireland in Australia.

A country the size of NZ where RL is not even close to the number one sport cannot host a profitable WC with the lack of travelling fans we have in RL. If you could play Australia v England in Wellington in front of a few thousand travelling fans and a handful of ex-pats or hop on a plane for a couple of hours and play it in Brisbane in front of 40,000 or more which would you choose?

In what sense are the rfl the dominant force in the rlef? I'm not saying that you are wrong just curious as to how that works. Danny kandjazan said the rlef is funded entirely by the rlif for example.

I didn't know about the RLIF funding - there's never been an announcment regarding the profits from the RLWC and what they are being used for. Then again the RLIF can't even get a website up and running.

But seeing as the RFL are by far the dominant ngb in Europe, Richard Lewis and Nigel Wood are on the RLEF board, and if any of the other nations want to progress then they'll need the help and assistance of the RFL in the long term, then I think they'd be in a good position if they wanted to twist a few arms.

"Just as we had been Cathars, we were treizistes, men apart."
Jean Roque, Calendrier-revue du Racing-Club Albigeois, 1958-1959

totally incorrect. the ARL has offered the nzrl to host the anzac test and they are the ones that want it in australia because it makes greater revenues here, of which they share.

the lack of corporate facilities (or in good numbers i think) at the warriors home ground or north harbour stadium have meant that brisbane for example makes it much better for them

Not totally incorrect. Next year the game is in Christchurch.

While I realise that financial matters are important, if the game had been staged in NZ then the Kiwis might've won the fixture more often. That in turn might've generated more interest, boosting crowds, increasing sponsorship levels etc. It might've helped the games standing in NZ as well. Not that I suppose the ARL are too bothered about that though.

Instead the game has only been played in NZ once. Strangely enough it was the only time the Kiwis won. Given the reasons for keeping the game in Aus, it's odd that the game was played one year at Newcastle in front of only 20,000. Perhaps the trip to NZ is just a bit too far for the ARL.

While I realise that financial matters are important, if the game had been staged in NZ then the Kiwis might've won the fixture more often. That in turn might've generated more interest, boosting crowds, increasing sponsorship levels etc. It might've helped the games standing in NZ as well. Not that I suppose the ARL are too bothered about that though.

Instead the game has only been played in NZ once. Strangely enough it was the only time the Kiwis won. Given the reasons for keeping the game in Aus, it's odd that the game was played one year at Newcastle in front of only 20,000. Perhaps the trip to NZ is just a bit too far for the ARL.

there was an article in an australian mag on this

the ARL was quoted as saying its the nzrl whose always wanted games to be played in australia, until now